The reason I felt this was relevant is because it might potentially alter the entire future of gaming. While I don't know the exact pricing of said fee, apparently each game you buy will be linked to your xbox profile where a code needs to be redeemed. There are a couple of caveats here that seem to be true thus far.

a.) You have to have internet connection to verify game each time you want to play. Therefore, if your internet is down you can't play any of your "offline" games. Bye bye rural DSL gamers.

b.) The game is linked to your profile. So if your roommate, who went in halfzies on the game with you, wants to start his or her own saved games it would have to be under their xbox profile (so far normal) but would be required to pay said fee to have access.

c.) This eliminates "borrowing". Sorry guys no more friendly "yea John, of course you can borrow my copy of Mass effect 10 that I purchased with my money in exchange for your copy of Halo 10 that you purchased with your own money."

d.) This one is merely conjecture at this point, but it is rumored that the fee might be pretty steep. Like, close to retail.

With PC gaming this sort of activation was necessary because for a very long time PC games could be EASILY duplicated and burnt onto a new CD/DVD. Hence the reason we don't see PC games selling used at all; everyone would just buy it, copy it, and return it. What are your thoughts on this direction gaming is headed? Me personally? I find that purely on principle the whole thing turns me off of console gaming altogether...at least on the Xbox.

Edit: additional Question - Do you think Sony will follow suit?

Edited, May 21st 2013 8:40pm by electromagnet83

Edited, May 21st 2013 8:40pm by electromagnet83

____________________________

The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

With PC gaming this sort of activation was necessary because for a very long time PC games could be EASILY duplicated and burnt onto a new CD/DVD.

And it wasn't exactly difficult or rare to do with the 360...

So it's OK that there isn't a used PC game market, because PC games are easily duplicated and pirated. But it's not OK for the 360 to implement similar methods for the same reason?

Edited, May 21st 2013 8:46pm by TirithRR

The PCs motivation for online activation was to deter software piracy. I'm sure we can all agree that with torrents and even a moderately tech savvy person is a HUGE problem. Xbox's motivation is different. It is simply to deter used game sales which , for a long time, has been a legit business. They are doing it to tell us that if we want to play a game we didn't buy new we will have to pay (according to the current information) about 65% of the retail price in the form of an activation code..which is of course on top of whatever you paid for the used disc itself.

____________________________

The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

If this is where gaming is really going then I don't see a disc being part of the actual product much longer. Seems it would be easier to just sell it all digitally. It's easier to make you feel you don't actually own something if you can't really put your hands on it. No more physical media means higher profits too. I feel DRM will kill gaming sooner or later. Which one remains to be seen.

____________________________

Character: Urzol Thrush Server: Ultros FC: The Kraken Club

Outshined

Teneleven wrote:

We secretly replaced your tank wemelchor with Foldgers Crystal's. Let's see what happens.

I'm sure we can all agree that with torrents and even a moderately tech savvy person is a HUGE problem.

People that aren't going to buy a game aren't going to buy a game. That's all there is to it. There are two types of bootleggers; The kind that download, play, and decide afterwards whether the game is worth their money and the type that download games with no intention of paying for it. The second group isn't going to just start paying for games because the companies decided to take away their ability to play those games, however long that lasts. So all that's left is the first group, who will either not bother buying or they'll start risking their money on products they haven't tried first. My bet is they won't bother either, but who knows. And if the recent Sims release is any evidence, you're also annoying the **** out of your "blind" customers who purchase without testing.

Really, torrents and such don't hurt a company nearly as much as they'd like you to believe it does, but the always-on and other anti-piracy tactics will hurt them more.

Edited, May 22nd 2013 10:05am by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

What GA said is true. If Im working at Walmart barely making enough to feed myself and put a roof over my head, torrenting/pirating sounds great. I mean I would never be able to get the games in the first place. But I also agree with Steam isnt not a piracy problem (that will always be there) its a DRM/Publisher/pricing problem.

Years ago I used to work at Walmart and almost all of my games were pirated. If i didnt pirate them I could have never afforded to play them anyway. Pirated games are usually buggy like to crash and overall a pain to install and get around DRM. But sometimes its the opposite, The DRM in the original is so horrendous that the pirated version is easier or less intrusive over all, also a pricing problem. Most games today arent worth 60 dollars, most games back then werent either.

Publishers drop so much into a game now days that they are forced to market it at premium, between licencing fees, over inflated sale predictions, and general money grubbing. They are slowly putting themselves into a place where they will never make a profit becuase they put more in than they get back. Look at SE and the Tomb raider/Sleeping Dogs debacle. Both games "under preformed to them" yet sold a combined like 4+ million copies, and both games got pretty decent reviews/critical acclaim.

Yet games like Dark Souls sell 2 million and they're having a party and super excited. Big publishers like to thik throwing more money at something should return more money, instead its the opposite they force themselves into a place where its impossible to make a return on investment.

It'll be fun when all we can buy is digital copies of games for $80. They do still have to manufacture all of those 1's and 0's after all. And hitting that copy button requires someone with a masters on staff full time.

Well obviously not, but I do know that I'm paying the same price as a physical copy just to get a download now. I'm sure manufacturing costs go into the price somewhere, It would be nice to see that reflected in the cost, especially since you don't even get manuals now a days.

Sorry for the sarcasim, didn''t know this part of zam was immunized for it.

I don't care for several reasons ($3 is nothing and the difference is trifling at 75% off), but it would be a nice bonus for those that do buy games online and a small incentive to bring people off of physical discs for consoles.

Of course, that was 2006. The digital market has exploded since then and I'm guessing that manufacturing is one area that has been cutback on just to keep the new release price at $60.

On the PC, direct distribution has caused a lot of games to be available for cheap. Since they don't take up real estate with physical stock, retailers can offer games that would otherwise be of limited value shelf-wise. And, since they're older and have either made back their costs (of the publisher cut bait on them), they're cheap as ****.

If going primarily digital caused the same price effects on consoles as they have on PCs, I'd be begging consoles to go digital. Well, if I had a console. Which I don't.

A lot of this has strayed off topic but the general clamoring among comment fields and reviews on other sites show that the public seems pretty discontent with Microsoft bending them over like this. Add to that the fact that games took a back seat in a presentation that was supposed to be about....well, games and you end up with quite the blunder.

I have tried not to be a fanboy of either Xbox or Sony, but I'm interested to see what Sony's press conference will hold. If they do NOT charge a fee to play used games, that alone is going to cause the masses to flock over to the Ps4.

____________________________

The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

If all gamers would team up and simply refuse to buy into this scheme they would be forced to reverse their decision. People won't though. Too many people will mindless buy right into it without a care in the world. This personally angers me and if it is implemented I will not buy the system.

If all gamers would team up and simply refuse to buy into this scheme they would be forced to reverse their decision. People won't though. Too many people will mindless buy right into it without a care in the world. This personally angers me and if it is implemented I will not buy the system.

Most people won't even realize these features exist, because most people using gaming consoles don't follow gaming news all that closely.

My brother, for instance, has a 360. He bought a kinect last week, because he was curious, and because it meant he could get some games for my mother to play with my niece as her Mother's Day gift.

Other than that, it gets used for streaming sports/netflix, or playing CoD (blissfully, with everyone muted).

He'd probably buy the next xbox, just because it's the system he's used to using. Having to learn a new controller format alone would be annoying for him. So all this annoying quirks would probably escape his notice completely until he discovered them post-purchase.

Sure, they'll be "Requires internet connection" on the box. But who is ACTUALLY going to notice that?

Based off of my "Pullingitoutofmyasstimates" Microsoft lost 40% of their gamer customer base after the announcement, so they're backpedaling on a lot of statement to get people back long enough to buy a system.

Based off of my "Pullingitoutofmyasstimates" Microsoft lost 40% of their gamer customer base after the announcement, so they're backpedaling on a lot of statement to get people back long enough to buy a system.

Except that twitter message was posted before the stuff from the VP and that nelson guy.

It's pretty clear that Microsoft is a mess internally with this stuff. The only thing I can imagine is that they rapidly pushed up the entire calendar, to ensure the PS4 couldn't launch with the same advantage they had this past generation.

Nothing else makes sense to explain this extent of disorder. Particularly not when we're talking about a MAJOR product like the Xbox One.

At the end of the day, it's just really bad PR. There's always this sense, internally, that you need the highest level admin to publicly speak about a product. And that's certainly not unsubstantiated.

But the other reality is that, if they can't eloquently and accurately speak on the subject, they should NOT be interacting with the press about it, at all, until a time that they can. A delay there is WAY better than a botched presentation.

Choose the highest level exec that can actually speak on the subject, and let them do the talking. You can have the high level execs give presentations, since they don't have to know crap to memorize a speech, if you want. But don't schedule interviews.

So now that the **** has stopped spraying out of the fan momentarily, and we are all getting a nice breeze by the rapid backpedal being done by both companies (Sony apparently had plans to follow suit that are now over source), where are we going from here, do you think?

Will the big two companies try to kill off used games and backwards compatibility, or will they actually smarten up some?

Will the big two companies try to kill off used games and backwards compatibility, or will they actually smarten up some?

Of course they will. They (console manufacturers and publishers) make money off new games sales. They don't make money off used game sales. Since they're in the business to make money, they will continues to try and push for new game sales as exclusively as possible.

I'm guessing a focus towards the softer approach of account-locked DLCs included in new game packages. You can buy a used copy of Elite Ninja Dino-Warriors but you'll only get the Triceratops laser helmet and Diplodocus marine units if you buy new.

It's not that simple though. They make money by people buying their console, and subsequently buying games for it. The more people who buy the console, the wider the range of their potential profits.

Right now, gamers only generally buy big-name titles that they really want, because a $60 price point is just too expensive for the others. Greatest Hits titles will fall to a more reasonable price in time, yeah, but it's not a super fast process.

But the appeal of a gaming console isn't just big-name titles, it's the full package. Up until now, that has included cheaper, used titles to supplement your gaming library.

If I have to pony up $300, I'm going to feel very differently about doing so in a world where I'm only looking at owning 7 big budget games that year compared to a world where I would own 10-15. That makes me far more likely to purchase the console in the first place, and 7 titles' worth of publishing fees is certainly better than 0.

It's a balancing act. And I don't know what the answer is. EA has been using their online passes, but now that's going out the window. And those were essentially just DLC packs.

But I also feel very confident about one thing - used games aren't even on a list of publishers' true woes. They're the red herring here. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of used games sales are on titles that the consumer would not have purchased at full price anyway, meaning the publisher doesn't actually lose any money there. In fact, I'd argue they gain it in the long run. That player purchasing the used game is a potential new fan of your studio or series. Used games are a way of extending your advertising into an audience you weren't appropriately reaching before (and because you weren't getting them to buy your games, they weren't making you money anyway).

Now, if it was the case that all of these gamers WOULD buy enough big-budget titles before their price dropped officially, without used games, it would be a different story. But I don't believe that it would be enough.

If I have to pony up $300, I'm going to feel very differently about doing so in a world where I'm only looking at owning 7 big budget games that year compared to a world where I would own 10-15. That makes me far more likely to purchase the console in the first place, and 7 titles' worth of publishing fees is certainly better than 0.

My guess is that they feel that console purchasing as a whole across the gaming community is fairly inelastic. People inclined to play console video games are going to buy one method or another and probably aren't likely to move to PC gaming for various reasons. Many of the consoles are likely purchased as gifts or by parents where costs of games isn't as heavy a factor. And the take on seven games purchased at full retail is greater than the take on four or five games purchased at full retail and a million-thousand games purchased used. Provided MS and Sony are on the same page, all those people who want to play Call of Duty or Madden are going to wind up buying one console or another. What else are they going to do -- play CoD on the Ouya?

Quote:

But I also feel very confident about one thing - used games aren't even on a list of publishers' true woes. They're the red herring here. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of used games sales are on titles that the consumer would not have purchased at full price anyway, meaning the publisher doesn't actually lose any money there

But if the used game sales weren't available, it's likely the customer would purchase some quantity of new games. Maybe not at the same ratio but even if they only buy 25% as many games new as they'd buy used, that's still a percentage of $25 going towards publishers for every $100 customers used to spend... and from which MS/Sony/publishers got $0.00

It's like if they stopped offering deep deals on PC digital downloads. Obviously I wouldn't buy as many games but I'd still buy some. I'd just be much more selective on which games I bought. But my general gaming budget wouldn't suddenly go to zero dollars.

But, like I said, I'd expect to see a soft approach where buying new becomes increasingly more desirable than buying used so the more restrictions placed upon used games, the smaller the population is who seriously cares since they've become accustomed to buying new anyway. If they can couple that with a push towards digital sales, so much the better.

It's like if they stopped offering deep deals on PC digital downloads. Obviously I wouldn't buy as many games but I'd still buy some. I'd just be much more selective on which games I bought. But my general gaming budget wouldn't suddenly go to zero dollars.

Which, if anything, is what I'd argue is something the console market seriously needs to be looking into. If Microsoft had begun their no-used presentation with a discussion of the PC gaming market, and pledged to offer the same opportunity to console gamers (and, in so doing, assure players that they wouldn't be missing used games anyway), then this would have been a very different scenario.

I doubt they have to offer sales to the extent of PC gaming, but it's in their best interest to do something. I don't think the market is at a sustainable price point. Particularly not where smaller studios are concerned (and not when smaller studios can only generally work on indie games, because publishing on the consoles is far too painful).

As for the actual console market, my only point there is that any gamer already playing used games is going to consider it a strong strike against the console for them to be unavailable. In some percentage of sales, that's going to cost them all new game sales, instead of winning them some sales in conjunction with used games.

So either used games are an actual problem, in which case publishers are losing a lot of money, and stand to lose FAR more by alienating those players completely. Or used games aren't really a problem, and they stand to lose a lot of money by completely alienating their fanbase by coming off as the major corporation that doesn't give two ***** about the quality of life of their fan base where it doesn't make them money.

Because here's the thing. Used games aren't pirating. It's also a practice that's been firmly upheld legally under the first sale doctrine. Trying to cast that entire industry, and the people making use of it, as leachers... is obviously going to **** off your fanbase. And ******* off your fanbase at precisely the time you want them to be as excited as possible is not really a good plan.

As for the actual console market, my only point there is that any gamer already playing used games is going to consider it a strong strike against the console for them to be unavailable. In some percentage of sales, that's going to cost them all new game sales, instead of winning them some sales in conjunction with used games.

So either used games are an actual problem, in which case publishers are losing a lot of money, and stand to lose FAR more by alienating those players completely. Or used games aren't really a problem, and they stand to lose a lot of money by completely alienating their fanbase by coming off as the major corporation that doesn't give two sh*ts about the quality of life of their fan base where it doesn't make them money.

Your conclusions are built on a faulty premise. A game player may consider it a strike against them if they can't buy used games but that only matters if they have an alternative. At some point, MS and Sony will jointly decide to block used games (or somehow monetize it) and, again, where will the console players go? Wii U? Just stop playing video games?

Probably not. They'll spend the same budget on fewer games, purchasing more selectively. And MS/Sony will get a full cut of each sale rather than missing out on an entire market.

For that matter, a shift to digital downloads likely won't happen until it's jointly decided between MS and Sony, just because of publisher concerns.

As for the actual console market, my only point there is that any gamer already playing used games is going to consider it a strong strike against the console for them to be unavailable. In some percentage of sales, that's going to cost them all new game sales, instead of winning them some sales in conjunction with used games.

So either used games are an actual problem, in which case publishers are losing a lot of money, and stand to lose FAR more by alienating those players completely. Or used games aren't really a problem, and they stand to lose a lot of money by completely alienating their fanbase by coming off as the major corporation that doesn't give two sh*ts about the quality of life of their fan base where it doesn't make them money.

Your conclusions are built on a faulty premise. A game player may consider it a strike against them if they can't buy used games but that only matters if they have an alternative. At some point, MS and Sony will jointly decide to block used games (or somehow monetize it) and, again, where will the console players go? Wii U? Just stop playing video games?

Probably not. They'll spend the same budget on fewer games, purchasing more selectively. And MS/Sony will get a full cut of each sale rather than missing out on an entire market.

For that matter, a shift to digital downloads likely won't happen until it's jointly decided between MS and Sony, just because of publisher concerns.

On the contrary, I would argue that you are placing limitations on the group without sufficient reason to do so.

For one thing, there's a meaningful difference between console gamers and gamers who play on consoles. The first group is the significant minority, and were always going to purchase a console, regardless of how worthless the generation leap was. They probably already knew which of the next generation they'd be purchasing (if not both) long before any rumors or specs about the next generation even came out.

But we're moving into a market where there are far, far more options. The gap between your average pc and a gaming console is closing quite rapidly. A $400 laptop is already capable of playing just about anything on the market at more than passable levels, and the next generation of cpus are showing an even greater increase in integrated graphics. The barrier to move to pc gaming has literally never been lower.

For the graphics-obsessed, that might not be a selling point. But I'd wager the majority of gamers who just happen to use consoles aren't caring all that much what's under the hood. And PC gaming has never before been so accessible. Particularly not with MMOs like WoW introducing so many new players to the system.

I'd also argue that more console gamers are likely purchasing their own systems than ever before, as the market has aged up with time. Most gamers aren't high school kids anymore, they're people in their 20s and 30s. Not because there are fewer high school gamers, but because former high school gamers grew up.

Plus, the notion of gaming has changed a fair bit recently. Gamers who are looking for a way to pass time are going to be more open to the idea of just using their standard devices for the task, because their standard devices (phones and tablets) are doing it increasingly well. And that market is growing fairly quickly.

Is there a decent population who won't care? Of course. Call of Duty is going to sell a LOT of consoles to gamers who don't even have particularly intentions to play anything else. As will Madden (etc.) games. That's a relatively guaranteed market.

It's also not one I imagine overlaps with the used game market at all. The used game market is filled with gamers trying to keep an eye on their budget. Those gamers are going to have to make a decision if they want to join the next console generation. And considering the options available, I'd be surprised if a decent bulk of them didn't pass it up.

Out of all my coworkers (25-35 y/o males) who play games... I'm the only one who owns a PC capable of doing anything beyond web browsing, if they own a PC at all. They all still play the AAA titles on the 360 and PS3.

If they've bought a pc in the past two years, chances are it can play most games on the market at low settings at playable frame rates.

If they're going to buy a new console, they can DEFINITELY get a PC at the same price point, or lower, that will play games at acceptable graphics levels/framerates (particularly since intel's next gen budget chip line will have launched by then).

If they aren't early adopters, as most gamers aren't (because you get a sub-par product for a higher price), the quality of the pc will go higher. If they aren't looking for a laptop, the quality goes higher. All without ever spending more than you'd spend on the console.

And remember that more and more gamers are becoming aware of how cheaply you can game on the PC.

If none of them would even consider pc gaming, then they're pretty clearly in the minority console gaming demographic that was going to buy the console anyway. They are not indicative of the general audience anyway. I feel the need to point this out, since you tossed out the age/gender like it meant something. Just because they fall into groups with higher rates of gamers doesn't make them representative of the group at large.

And to be frank, I'd VERY MUCH argue that a small sample size in which having a computer is noteworthy is not going to offer us any valuable insights into the gaming population at large.

Out of all my coworkers (25-35 y/o males) who play games... I'm the only one who owns a PC capable of doing anything beyond web browsing, if they own a PC at all. They all still play the AAA titles on the 360 and PS3.

Yeah, the console gamers I see in other forums are constantly very adamant about having no interest in PC gaming or have various reasons (of varying legitimacy) for why they stick with consoles. I just don't see them shifting to PC gaming. Even when the issue of costs comes up, it's "Yeah but a gaming PC costs so much money so you're actually paying more... etc etc". It might not be true but they have zero interest in finding out. I regularly see people who are convinced that it's 1994 and running a game requires days of fiddling with .dlls and IRQs before you can get started.

I'm not debating whether or not a PC is an adequate replacement, even at the same price points. But I'm completely unconvinced that "We'll drive them to PC gaming!" is even on the radar of MS/Sony concerns when designing consoles.

#391048jack1,
Posted:Jun 02 2013 at 11:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Previously, we reported that Na'Vi might head to China and prepare for TI3 (related news), but we got no further specifics. Many players think Na'Vi will cancel their journey to China and stay in Europe to train considering the excellent performance of Alliance’s suppressing three Chinese power houses on G – 1. However, sources suggest Na'Vi has already decided to head to Shanghai, China on June 24th. But we have no idea whether they will stay for a long time or attend some exhibition match. from gameguyz.com

But I don't think the majority of console gamers care, to be honest. Console gamers who are actually active in gaming culture are generally on the defensive (and typically for good reason).

I seriously doubt they're the norm. I think they're at one end of the spectrum. At the other end you have the super casual fans who'll buy a console just because it's easy, and because they don't know of any alternative (a la gamers like my brother, for whom the xbox is a CoD box).

It's the people in between I think they stand to lose. The people with a stronger sense of what the gaming landscape is like, who are more interested in the actual advantages of their machines. With the fairly strong move towards gaming-specific marketing in new PC sales (since they can actually substantiate that now, even without dedicated cards), it's only becoming stronger.

I just don't see the minimal increase in game sales actually countering the loss of console sales. And the more I think about it, I think it's generally true that gamers are either going to pay for a game at $60 or they won't. I don't think most people keep a mental tally of how much they've spent on games in general, when it comes to the actual practice of buying. They'll buy a game that looks interesting once it's low enough. They won't buy it before that. And until we start getting up to large sums of cash, I doubt their overall budget will matter.

If publishers aren't going to offer their games at a low cost, they aren't going to see an increase in sales just because you can't buy the game used anymore. The players just won't buy the game.

But I DO think that the initial evaluation of a console will take the actual number of games you expect to play into account. If it looks low, because you'll have to pay full price for everything, I expect it'll lose a fair number of buyers.

I get what you're saying, I just don't think it's a bell curve between "Casual, Because it just works" and "Consoles-4-eva!". If anything, I think it's more of an inverted bell curve with the extremes making up the majority of console players and people who make an informed, impartial weighing of their console vs PC options the definite minority. I think most console players are either opposed to PC gaming (actively or passively), want console exclusives or want to play with friends/family who are also console gamers.

I get what you're saying, I just don't think it's a bell curve between "Casual, Because it just works" and "Consoles-4-eva!". If anything, I think it's more of an inverted bell curve with the extremes making up the majority of console players and people who make an informed, impartial weighing of their console vs PC options the definite minority. I think most console players are either opposed to PC gaming (actively or passively), want console exclusives or want to play with friends/family who are also console gamers.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2013 10:17am by Jophiel

That's quite possible. I suppose we'll see. If Microsoft doesn't do a 180 on these policies, that is.

When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

And... I wonder how true the next statement is though, about the reason for Steam/Digital Distribution prices. Makes sense, but I just don't know how true it is. I would imagine it has to be a factor.

I assume it's a factor but, more so, consumers are just used to an initial MSRP that's largely consistent across platforms and likely in the $40-$50 range. If publishers have us used to dropping $49.99 for a game at release, they're never going to say "Just kidding, it's actually just $39.99 now since it's on Steam!"

I'd guess that the physical costs for the game are a pretty small part of the overall cost anyway and the savings aren't really significant for a new title vs game development and marketing costs. For older titles, the price can drop because they don't have to press physical discs for a game with limited sales appeal. But, for the new stuff, they'd be cranking out the discs and boxes no matter what.

I don't know if all of this was originally intended and everything just blew up or if this includes a lot new policies.

Few important points from the article: The X1 will need to connect online once every 24 hours. There will be no fee for transferring/selling games imposed by Microsoft, but other publishers may do so. You can log into your account on up to 10 X1's and play your games on all of them. You can control the privacy and voice settings of the Kinect (not that this means much anymore with Verizon in the news and consoles getting hacked)